742 APPENDIX TO BRITISH CASE. 



The supposed precedent for such agreements as are set up in this 

 treaty, of the convention of 1882 (Ex. Doc. 113, p. 18), between Great 

 Britain, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands, 

 is very far indeed from being such. That was for the police regula- 

 tion of the fisheries in the North Sea, and on the coasts of all the 

 contracting parties. It was limited to five years, and not perpetual, 

 as this treaty is. It neither granted nor renounced any right. The 

 freedom of navigation, etc., inside the 3-mile limit was reserved. 

 The naval vessels of the respective powers were to enforce the regu- 

 lation. For serious infractions not settled at sea the offending vessel 

 was to be taken to a port of her own country for trial. 



Such regulations as these just cited might well have formed a 

 precedent for composing the differences between the United States 

 and Great Britain ; for, first, they did not admit territorial dominion 

 a5 existing over bays more than 6 miles wide, but conferred it for 

 the time being and for a limited purpose; second, they recognised 

 the rights of fishing vessels to be considered as vessels entitled to the 

 rights of all other vessels bearing the flag of their country, without 

 regard to their occupation, so far as it respected every thing else 

 than fishing; third, they placed the administration of these fishing 

 affairs in the commanders of national vessels ; and, fourth, they pro- 

 vided that an accused vessel should be taken to her own country for 

 trial. 



The contrast between this North Sea fisheries treaty, to which 

 Great Britain was a party, and the one now before the Senate is 

 Tjivid. They are substantially the opposites of each other in nearly 

 every particular. 



Nor does the treaty now before the Senate bear any material re- 

 semblance to the protocol proposed by Mr. Seward in 1866 (Ex. 

 Doc. 113, p. 17) , nor to the scheme sent by Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps 

 in November, 1886 (Ex. Doc. 113. Fiftieth Congress, first session, 

 p. 17). 



The fifth article of the treaty, declaring that the treaty shall not 

 be construed to include within common waters any interior portions 

 of bays, etc., that " can not be reached from the sea without passing 

 within the 3 marine miles mentioned in article I of the convention 

 of October 20, 1818," is very sweeping, and may cover a great deal 

 more than the mere reading of it would imply to one uninstructed in 

 the nature of the northeastern lands and waters, with their deep in- 

 denting bays, their many islands and islets, and their tremendous 

 tides, the rise and fall of which, in many places, change the aspects 

 of nature to an astonishing degree. But it is purely language mak- 

 ing the test the capacity of passing within 3 miles of the shore, and 

 plainly indicates that no matter how large may be the bay, no matter 

 how wide apart may be its headlands, no matter how deep may be the 

 waters between such headlands at high tide, if the ship-channel to it 

 at low tide be within 3 miles of land it is an excluded bay. 



Having now seen what the proposed treaty accomplishes in respect 

 of " delimitation," we proceed to examine its provisions in respect 

 of what American vessels engaged in fishing on the high seas may 

 and may not do in British North American waters ascertained, en- 

 larged, and defined as before stated, and in the ports on those coasts. 



In order to understand more clearly the disastrous nature of what 

 the " plenipotentiaries " have agreed to, it is valuable to consider 



